Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Pick some pr to branch 3.0 #41674 #43095 #44164 #44290

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: branch-3.0
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

seawinde
Copy link
Contributor

What problem does this PR solve?

6fdc8a5
#41674

7c45912
#43095

7aec6ff
#44164

Related PR: #xxx

Problem Summary:

Release note

None

Check List (For Author)

  • Test

    • Regression test
    • Unit Test
    • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
    • No need to test or manual test. Explain why:
      • This is a refactor/code format and no logic has been changed.
      • Previous test can cover this change.
      • No code files have been changed.
      • Other reason
  • Behavior changed:

    • No.
    • Yes.
  • Does this need documentation?

    • No.
    • Yes.

Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

  • Confirm the release note
  • Confirm test cases
  • Confirm document
  • Add branch pick label

seawinde and others added 3 commits November 19, 2024 20:59
…s other join conjuncts (apache#41674)

Support rewrite by materialized view when join has other join conjuncts
Such as mv def is

            select l_orderkey, o_orderdate
            from
            lineitem
            inner join
            orders on l_orderkey = o_orderkey and l_shipdate <= o_orderdate
            inner join partsupp on ps_partkey = l_partkey and l_orderkey + o_orderkey != ps_availqty;


The query can be rewtritten by mv sucessfully when has not equal
conjuncts in join
l_shipdate <= o_orderdate` and `ps_partkey = l_partkey and l_orderkey + o_orderkey != ps_availqty;


            select l_orderkey, o_orderdate
            from
            lineitem
            inner join
            orders on l_orderkey = o_orderkey and l_shipdate <= o_orderdate
            inner join partsupp on ps_partkey = l_partkey and l_orderkey + o_orderkey != ps_availqty;
When shrinking the test data set, the corresponding out file data was
not refreshed. As a result, the data in the out file was refreshed
again.

There are some tests that hit both materialized views as expected,
modifying such corresponding cases.
…zed view (apache#44164)

Problem Summary:

When materialized view is rewritten, it would use the mv metadata.
Should try to get read lock before use these metadata. or it would cause
error.
Such as mv def is as following

CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW mv1
        BUILD IMMEDIATE REFRESH COMPLETE ON MANUAL
        DISTRIBUTED BY RANDOM BUCKETS 2
        PROPERTIES ('replication_num' = '1') 
        AS
          select
              o_orderdate,
              o_shippriority,
              o_comment,
              o.o_code as o_o_code,
              l_orderkey, 
              l_partkey,
              l.o_code as l_o_code
            from
              orders_same_col o left
              join lineitem_same_col l on l_orderkey = o_orderkey
              left join partsupp on ps_partkey = l_partkey and l_suppkey = ps_suppkey;

When handling transparent rewriting, a MV scan plan is used for the
transparent rewrite. During the initialization of the scan plan, the
partitions of the table are retrieved, so it is necessary to attempt to
acquire a read lock on the table during initialization. If the read lock
is not acquired, subsequent operations may add or delete partitions, and
in the later processing of table partitions, calling get Partition may
not retrieve the corresponding partition, leading to data errors.
@doris-robot
Copy link

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

  1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
  2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
  3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
  4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
  5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

@seawinde
Copy link
Contributor Author

run buildall

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants